News
SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 missions likely two back-to-back Starlink satellite launches
Hinted at by a launch photographer and confirmed by an article published on NASASpaceflight.com, it appears that SpaceX’s next Falcon 9 launch is at least a month away and will likely be the company’s first operational Starlink mission, deemed “Starlink 1”.
Barring a surprise mission in the interim, this means that SpaceX is going to have a gap of at least two months between customer launches, something the company has not experienced since mid-2015 – more than four years ago. As such, it’s an extremely happy coincidence that SpaceX may now have internal Starlink launches to fill lulls in its commercial launch manifest.
Like any production and services-focused company, SpaceX incurs operational costs whether or not its services are being used – employees, leases, supplier contracts, and more still need to be paid for, facilities still need upkeep, long-lead production can’t simply pause, and many other recurring costs can’t be avoided. In theory, supplementing commercial launches with internal launches thus limits SpaceX’s downtime and effectively increases overall capital efficiency.
Flatsat revolution
Enter Starlink, a colossal ~11,800-satellite broadband internet constellation nominally designed, manufactured, launched, and operated by SpaceX. On May 23rd, after approximately one week of delays, a twice-flown Falcon 9 booster lifted off for the third time in support of SpaceX’s first dedicated Starlink launch, an unparalleled 60-satellite beta test known internally as “Starlink v0.9”.
Upsetting all expectations, SpaceX managed to fit en incredible 60 high-performance Starlink satellites into Falcon 9’s unchanged payload fairing – middle of the ground in terms of usable volume. Weighing anywhere from 16,000 kg to 18,500 kg (35,300-40,800 lb), SpaceX’s very first dedicated Starlink launch also crushed the company’s record for heaviest payload launched by several metric tons.
In a fascinating turn of events, SpaceX ultimately sided with a largely unprecedented form factor for its operational Starlink satellites, resulting in ultra-thin, rectangular spacecraft that can be stacked like cards and feature their own integrated locking and stacking mechanisms.
A paradigm shift
According to NASASpaceflight.com, SpaceX’s first and second operational Starlink missions (Starlink 1 and 2) are scheduled to launch no earlier than (NET) October 17th and November 4th, while a similarly trustworthy source puts Starlink 1’s launch date NET “late October”.
Given that Starlink v0.9 was effectively a massive flight test meant to tease out issues with the satellites’ designs, any new any satellites launched in the coming months will have almost certainly been manufactured, assembled, and prepared for flight in just a few months. Unfortunately, out of the 60 satellites launched in May 2019, 10 (16.5%) have been decommissioned for unknown reasons, although the remaining 50 (83.5%) have reached their final orbits and are believed to be in good health.
Put simply, a >15% failure rate is not acceptable for an operational constellation of thousands of satellites, meaning that SpaceX will likely continue to refine and improve its Starlink design before truly ramping up production and launch cadence. Unless the issues leading to multiple satellite failures were relatively simple or expected, the company’s next one (or two) Starlink launches could be closer to “v0.95” than the first fully operational missions. Time will tell.
For now, the fact alone that SpaceX reportedly plans to complete its 180th high-performance satellites barely nine months after beginning high-volume production is dumbfounding. Incredibly, building 180 satellites in 9 months is, by all means, a low-volume run relative to what SpaceX will need to achieve to launch its full Starlink constellation by late 2027. A production rate of 180 Starlink satellites per month is much closer to the necessary production and launch cadences needed for SpaceX’s deployment milestones.
Regardless, for the time being, it appears that odds are good that SpaceX will be able to make good on its promise of launching 2-6 Starlink missions in 2019. According to SpaceX, Starlink can begin offering serious commercial broadband services in regions of the northern US and southern Canada once 360 satellites are safely in orbit.
If SpaceX manages to launch two quasi-operational Starlink missions in the span of a month (Oct-Nov), that initial operations milestone could come just a few months into 2020.
Check out Teslarati’s Marketplace! We offer Tesla accessories, including for the Tesla Cybertruck and Tesla Model 3.
Elon Musk
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Four Raptor engines failed to ignite at T-zero, forcing SpaceX to scrub Starship Flight 13 Thursday.
SpaceX scrubbed the Starship Flight 13 launch attempt Thursday evening at the last possible moment, after four of the Super Heavy booster’s 33 Raptor 3 engines failed to ignite during the startup sequence. The 90-minute window had opened at 6:45 p.m. EDT from Starbase in Boca Chica, Texas, and the countdown had proceeded without issue all day, with more than 11.5 million pounds of liquid methane and liquid oxygen being fully loaded into the rocket before the automated abort triggered. SpaceX’s launch directors posted on X, “Standing down from today’s flight test attempt,” and shut down the livestream shortly after.
Musk confirmed the root cause within hours. “Some of the engines didn’t start, triggering an automatic launch abort,” he wrote on X. “To be confident of a good flight, 2 Raptors will be removed and replaced. Most probable launch timing is early next week.” SpaceX engineers began draining propellant tanks immediately and Booster 20 was rolled back to its hangar for inspection.
The timing adds a layer of significance that did not exist during any of the previous 12 Starship flights. This is the first time SpaceX has attempted to launch Starship since the company made its stock market debut in June, listing under ticker SPCX at $135 per share. Public investors are now watching every Starship outcome in real time, and a last-second abort carries more visibility than it would have six months ago.
Flight 13 was designed to be one of the most consequential tests in the program’s history. It was set to carry 20 Starlink V3 satellites, the first operational payload Starship has ever attempted to deploy. Six of those satellites carried external cameras to photograph Starship’s heat shield from the outside during flight, which would act as a self-inspection approach SpaceX has never attempted before. The mission also needed to complete a Raptor engine relight in space, a step SpaceX skipped on Flight 12 in May after losing an engine during ascent. That Flight 12 booster also flipped 90 degrees off course during its boostback burn when five engines failed to reignite.
SpaceX has not announced an official next launch date. Musk’s “early next week” window points to July 21 or 22 at the earliest, pending the engine swap and a return to the pad.
Elon Musk flew under the radar with his recent purchase of a $1 billion energy company, according to Federal Trade Commission (FTC) documents.
Transaction number 202612350 listed Tesla and SpaceX frontman Elon Musk as the acquiring party and CF APR Super Holdings LLC as the seller, with New APR Energy, LLC as the acquired entity. The deal, which closed without public announcement, came to light on May 14.
BREAKING: Elon Musk acquires Jacksonville power company APR Energy in a deal valued at more than $1,000,000,000.00.
— Polymarket Money (@PolymarketMoney) July 15, 2026
Analysts inferred the deal’s scale from minority stakeholder disclosures, including one report of a 5 percent interest sold for approximately $50.4 million. Fortress Investment Group had purchased APR’s assets in late 2024, rebranded the operation as New APR Energy, and subsequently transferred ownership to Musk.
APR Energy specializes in rapidly deployable power infrastructure. The company maintains one of the world’s largest fleets of mobile gas and diesel turbines, with more than 1.1 gigawatts of generation capacity. Its modular units, which are often trailer-mounted, enable turnkey installations ranging from 20 MW to over 500 MW.
APR provides full engineering, procurement, construction, operation, and maintenance services for behind-the-meter power plants, serving everything from data centers, utilities, and industrial clients.
The firm has expanded aggressively to meet surging demand, recently adding turbines and deploying over 100 MW for a major AI hyperscaler. Its solutions bridge critical gaps where grid interconnections face delays of two to five years, according to Yahoo.
The acquisition means something more for Musk. As he continues to expand projects in artificial intelligence, especially xAI, his AI venture, there is a greater need to supply energy-intensive supercomputing clusters, including the Colossus project, with what they need: reliable and high-capacity power.
Ownership of APR provides immediate access to flexible generation assets that can be deployed adjacent to data centers, reducing dependence on a strained infrastructure. It also complements Tesla’s energy storage business, so Musk will be able to pull from his own entities to address the rapid scaling demands of AI training and compute.
Tesla had a petition protesting a recall to fix a potential issue with 2017-2023 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles’ headlights was denied, as the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) disagreed with the company’s opinion of things.
The recall covers approximately 19,917 Model Y and Model 3 vehicles built from 2017 to 2023. Tesla initially submitted a noncompliance report for the headlights on these vehicles on March 15, 2024. Tesla then petitioned for an exemption from the fix, which violated FMVSS No. 108 (40 CFR 571.108), arguing that the “noncompliance is inconsequential as it relates to motor vehicle safety.
🚨 Tesla was denied a petition by the NHTSA to avoid a recall of 19,900 2017-2023 Model 3 and Model Y vehicles.
The NHTSA found that the vehicles’ headlights may exceed maximum lighting levels. Tesla argued it was inconsequential and did not require a recall. pic.twitter.com/m8Jmm1teLL
— TESLARATI (@Teslarati) July 16, 2026
The NHTSA disagreed, stating that Tesla’s conclusion that the headlights do not increase any risk was not an opinion it shared. The agency said it disagreed with Tesla’s assumption that glare is not increased to surrounding traffic. This issue could be highlighted even more in certain weather conditions.
Tesla will be required to remedy the issue, the NHTSA ruled:
“In consideration of the foregoing, NHTSA has decided that Tesla has not met its burden of persuasion that the subject FMVSS No. 108 noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety. Accordingly, Tesla’s petition is hereby denied, and Tesla is consequently obligated to provide notification of and free remedy for that noncompliance under 49 U.S.C. 30118 and 30120.”
The issue here appears to be the angle of the headlights and the brightness they emit during operation. The NHTSA report states that:
“Tesla’s headlamp supplier, Marelli Automotive Lighting, tested 25 right-hand and 25 left-hand lamps, and for this sample, found the maximum photometric intensity measured in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone was between 136.2 cd and 230.1 cd for the right-hand lamps and between 117.5 cd and 160.3 cd for the left-hand lamps. According to Tesla, these tests revealed that the photometric intensity of the right-hand and left-hand headlamp lower beam on the subject vehicles may measure as much as 230.1 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone, exceeding the maximum photometric intensity by 105.1 cd. Additionally, Tesla states that a left-hand lamp tested by a Transport Canada recognized laboratory measured a maximum of 171.27 cd in the 10°U to 90°U and 90°L to 90°R zone. Despite these measurements exceeding the allowed photometric maximum of 125 cd, Tesla believes that the subject noncompliance is inconsequential to motor vehicle safety.”
Tesla also argued at some points that the headlights had not been deemed responsible for any complaints, accidents, or injuries related to the noncompliance.
SpaceX Starship Flight 13 aborted at Zero and Musk just told us what broke
Elon Musk secretly acquires $1B energy company to power the AI future
